Contents

Freedom of religious worship is included as a specific case of freedom of expression and freedom of speech. In general, what a person believes doesn't actively harm others, yet holding and espousing any number of beliefs may expose that same person to persecution. To address this, freedom of religion is a protected right.

Canada — Freedom of religion is a constitutionally-protected "fundamental freedom" according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"

China — The Constitution of 1982 grants freedom of, and from, religion to all of its citizens. However, in reality, only religious associations which submit to the state can observe their beliefs unmolested[3]

Switzerland — In the Swiss Constitution since 1874[16]; Article 15 in the 1999 Federal Constitution[17]

United Kingdom — Guaranteed since the ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights, strengthened since the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. However, the UK does have an established state religion ("Cake or death?"[18]) and the abolition of legal penalties for blasphemy was shockingly recent (2008)[19]

While there are (apparently many) on the Religious Right that disagree, freedom from religion (e.g., the ability to be an atheist, secular humanist and so on) is an integral part of freedom of religion. This is because without the ability to choose to not partake in religious activity, the free choice of religious activity becomes meaningless. Freedom of choice requires informed consent and a cornerstone of this is the ability to withdraw consent - otherwise it's coerced, and not free consent. If the option to not be religious is removed, then being religious becomes effectively forced and the power that the belief has (because it was chosen out of all others, including the "N/A" option) is diminished.

There are multiple problems with the concept of freedom of religion, and how far a person's freedom of worship should be protected:

Religion and culture are often deeply intertwined. Many wars are religion-based and worshipping contrary to state is seen as an act of civil, not religious, disobedience. The "9/11 Mosque" brouhaha is an example of this.

Religion often demands actions from believers that offend the culture they exist in or conflicts with the values of the land. Examples include:

Declining medical treatment for your children on religious grounds. In 2011 the state of Oregon decided to remove religious conviction as a defense against homicide charges faced by parents who shun medical care for their kids.[25]

Monotheistic religion, by its very nature, tends to demand that it is the only true religion. "Thou shall have no other god but me," as Yahweh put it. As such those religions tend to frown on religious freedom for infidels (i.e. the rest of us).

Religion has historically been used as a last resort argument against, well, everything, but notably integration, and freedom of religion used as an argument to support discrimination in public accommodations, services, etc. To this end, the religious right has co-opted the phrases "religious freedom" and "religious liberty" as euphemisms for their bigotry and their desire to continue controlling others.

↑This practice has been deemed constitutionally-protected, so long as the person will eat the animal, and the sacrifice is not any more traumatic to the animal than other forms of non ritual food-slaughter. [1]